till the Jews loaded upon themselves the invidious reproach, that "they alone among all men shun every intercourse with other nations, and look upon all as enemies"7; or that "they observe the strangest customs, and show no friendliness to anyone". The consequences were inevitable. Owing to their social seclusion, they were soon misunderstood and cruelly misjudged. Their civil laws and institutions, their habits and pursuits, their history and doctrines, were even by truth-seeking historians ludicrously and almost incredibly distorted. At last a synodical decree expressly forbade all

“whoever invites a non-Jew into his house as his guest, and waits uроп him, brings his children into misery and exile" (a qirb na promom bo); Avod. Zar. 8a (Jews eating together with a non-Jew as his guests, even if they have their own lawfully prepared food, act as if they were eating of the sacrifices of the dead"); Pirke Rabbi Eliezer c. XXIX, by baisu

editions, as that of Lemberg 1867,

τραπέζης κοινωνεῖν μηδ' εὐνοεῖν τὸ

арáñaν; comp. Dion Cass. XLIX. 22, τὸ γάρ τοι γένος αὐτῶν θυμωθέν πIXρóτatóv kott; LXVIII. 32; Joseph. Ant. XIII. viп. 3, dià тỳν πрòs äλλous αὐτῶν (sc. of the Jews) τῆς διαίτης duíav, to which Josephus naturally adds, πειθόμενος δὲ κατ ̓ εὐσέβειαν πάντα ποιεῖν κτλ.; Lysimach. ap. Joseph. c. Ap. I. 34, "give no counsel to any stranger, but always advise them for the worst” (μήτε ἀνθρώπων τινὶ εὐνοήσειν, μήτε ἄριστα συμβουλεύσειν, ai là là Zapova); see also Philo, In Flacc. c. 5 (with respect to the Egyptians, διὰ τὴν παλαιὰν καὶ τρόπον τινὰ γεγενημένην πρὸς Ἰουδαίους ἀπέχθειαν).

though recent) הערל כאלי אוכל עם הכלב

מי שאוכל עם מכחישי יהוה read instead ,In a similar spirit .(כאלו אוכל להם טמא

the New Testament commands, "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine (concerning Christ), receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed; for he that biddeth him God speed is a partaker of his evil deeds" (2 John vers. 10, 11).

1 Diod. Sic. Fragm. XXXIV. 1, μóτους γὰρ ἁπάντων ἐθνῶν ἀκοινωνήτους εἶναι τῆς πρὸς ἄλλο ἔθνος ἐπιμιξίας 2. Philostr. Apollon. V. 33 (reproaching the Jews with a Bíos aptzτος, and hatred of κοινὴ τράπεζα). What a chasm separates the teaching of an Isaiah from the Talmudical doctrine that all non-Jews are from their birth, and certainly from their earliest stage of puberty, to be considered as not less unclean than a man afflicted with a running issue! (Talm. Av. Zar. 36, 37; comp. Lev. XV. 1 sqq.).

Diod. Sic. ibid. μŋôevi äλλų ¤‡veL

9 Comp. Diod. Sic. Fr. XL. 3 (áñáv θρωπόν τινα καὶ μισόξενον βίον εἰσηγή cato, sc. Moses); Tacit. Hist. V. 2-5, 13 (apud ipsos . . . misericordia in promptu, sed adversus omnes alios hostile odium; separati epulis, discreti cubilibus, etc.; Judaeorum mos absurdus sordidusque, etc.; comp. Whiston's Josephus, Dissert. III); Justin. XXXVI. 2 (caverunt ne cum peregrinis communicarent); Flor. III. 5 (illud grande impiae gentis arcanum); Theophr. ap. Porph. Abst. II. 26 (comp. Bernays, Theophr. Schrift üb. d. Frömmigk. pp. 109 sqq.); Strabo XVI. II. 34-46 (ἐκ μὲν τῆς δεισιδαιμονίας αἱ τῶν βρωμάτων ἀποσχέσεις xtλ., § 37, although Strabo's account is almost singular, in its impartiality);

Christians to take any meal with the Jews, for the avowed reason that the Jews despised to eat with the Christians'. These hostile prejudices, at which the student might smile, if the smile did not die away in his shudder at the hideous crop of hatred, oppression, and carnage, outlasted the ancient time and the middle ages, and will continue their mischievous work of retarding humanity and brotherly feeling, nay they may startle the civilized world again and again by sanguinary outbreaks of the populace, as long as the Jews cling to statutes which appear to them Divine, but which are nothing but the expression of the changeful customs of a distant age and a peculiar clime, and which, moreover, have been burdened and almost hidden by the rank over-growth of Rabbinical additions and misconceptions. The Jews cannot persevere in an isolation which, in the earlier centuries after their dispersion, was perhaps beneficial, because it enabled them to work out undisturbed the system of a pure faith, but which in our age of science and common enlightenment is sui

Dion Cass. XXXVII. 17 (xɛɣwpidaται δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν λοιπῶν ἀνθρώπων ἔς τε τ' ἄλλα τὰ περὶ τὴν δίαιταν πάνθ' og einetv xtλ.); Manetho, Apion, a. o. ap. Joseph. C. Ap., Piut. Symp. IV. v. 6; Is. c. 31; Juven. XIV. 96—106 (non monstrare vias eadem nisi sacra colenti etc.); Cic. Pro Flacc. c. 28 (huic autem barbarae superstitioni resistere etc.; in tam suspiciosa ac maledica civitate etc.; istorum religio sacrorum a... gravitate nominis nostri, majorum institutis abhorrebat); Quinct. III. VII. 21 (est conditoribus urbium infame, contraxisse aliquam perniciosam caeteris gentem, qualis est primus Judaicae superstitionis auctor); Plin. XIII. 4 or 9 (gens contumelia numinum insignis); Rutil. Numat. I. 383-398 (humanis animal dissociale cibis. Reddimus obscenae convicia debita genti. Radix stultitiae, cui frigida sabbata cordi, Sed cor frigidius religione sua est. Caetera mendacis deliramenta catastae etc.; adding almost prophetically, Latius excisae pestis contagia serpunt, Victoresque suos natio victa premit); L. Ann. Seneca Fragm. 42,

III. p. 427 ed. Haase (similar to Ru-
tilius: quum interim usque eo scele-
ratissimae gentis consuetudo conva-
luit, ut per omnes jam terras recepta
sit; victi victoribus leges dederunt);
Sueton. Aug. 76; Tib. 36 (qui super-
stitione ea tenebantur etc.); Apul.
Florid. I. 6 (Judaeos superstitiosos);
Amm. Marcell. XXII. 5 (foetentium
Judaeorum et tumultuantium saepe
taedio percitus, dolenter dicitur
M. Aurel. exclamasse: O Marco-
manni! o Quadi! o Sarmatae! tan-
dem alios vobis inertiores inveni);
see Comm.onExod.pp.XXV-XXXII;
Frankel, Monatsschr. 1856, pp.83-94;
1860, pp. 125-142; L. Geiger in Hil-
berg's Illustr. Monatshefte II. 13—25,
103-111.

1 Omnes deinceps clerici sive laici Judaeorum convivia evitent, nec eos ad convivium quisquam accipiat, quia quum apud Christianos communibus cibis non utantur, indignum atque sacrilegum est eorum cibos a Christianis sumi, etc.; see Eisenmenger, Entdeckt. Judenth. II. 646, referring to Jus Canonic., Decret. Pars II, causa 28, Quaest. 1, cap. 14.

cidal perversion, and treason against the genius of history. And wherever a free social intercourse with their fellow-citizens has been rendered possible by the abandonment of an obsolete dietary code, they have been better understood, and, as an invariable consequence, respected and valued'.

IX. SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTER ON THE NEW TESTAMENT IN REFERENCE TO THE CEREMONIAL LAW.

As this subject is of considerable importance in the history of religion, and involves some disputed questions which have not always been approached in a spirit of impartiality, it may here, at the conclusion of so many ceremonial ordinances, be fitly discussed.

Neither Christ nor his immediate apostles abrogated the ceremonial institutions of "Mosaism" 3. Christ declared, "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than one title of the Law to fail" 4; "Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the prophets, I am not come to destroy but to fulfil";

and, "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven” 1. And the early apostles never ceased to blame Paul for teaching, that the converted gentiles were free from the burden of the Law2. John, as his "Revelation" proves, knew no difference between Christianity and Judaism; he branded the least deviation from the old creed as an act of "the synagogue of Satan" 3; he was implacable against those more liberal converts who disregarded the Mosaic marriage-laws, and partook of the flesh of heathen sacrifices; he called them Nicolaitanes whose deeds he hated, Balaamites who cast stumbling blocks before the believers, or followers of Jezebel who would be mercilessly destroyed. "When from first to last the doctrine of the Church at Jerusalem was sternly levitical, it is quite incredible that Jesus ever taught his disciples the religious nullity of levitical ceremonies, and the equality of gentiles with Jews before God" 5. Long after the reported resurrection and ascension of Christ, Peter protested solemnly, "Nothing common or unclean has at any time entered into my mouth". Indeed, if Christ be considered as the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament and expected at his time, he can on no account be supposed to have repealed the Law, which itself declares to be unalterable for ever7.

pp. 204-211; De Wette in loc.; Meyer, 1. c. pp. 3-8, 30, 31, 38-42, 69, 70, 76 sqq.,109 sqq.,117 sqq.,123 sqq. The view thus expressed and laboriously defended by the latter writer, "Jesus is come in order to do perfectly, that is to realise, all that the Old Testament intended by its prophecies and by its types" (p. 1; comp. p. 137), is very commonly adopted; but it is against the context, against the language, and against the tenour of Christ's teaching. The passage in its literal and correct meaning was deemed so offensive that some, as Marcion, simply declared it a spurious addition (comp. Tertull. c. Marc. IV. 7, Hoc Matth. V. 17 Marcion ut additum erasit; see Meyer, 1. c. pp. 77); nay Strauss also has recourse to the same desperate expedient (Leben Jesu, pp. 212,213, "die anstössigen Verse - Matth. V. 18, 19 geben sich gradezu als ein Einschiebsel zu erkennen", adding another conjecture or assertion "nicht in den Text unseres jetzigen Matthaeus, wohl aber in die Rede Jesu und vielleicht eine frühere Aufzeichnung derselben").

1 Matth. V. 19..

2 Comp. Zeller, Vorträge und Abhandlungen geschichtlichen Inhalts, pp. 203 sqq., 228 sqq.

3 Revel. II. 9; III. 9.

4 Revel. II. 6, 14, 15, 20-24; comp. Zeller, 1. c. pp. 203, 214, 216.

5 Francis W. Newman, Against Hero-making in Religion, p. 11. On Luke XVI. 17 above quoted he observes (ibid. p. 12), "I am, of course, aware, that Christian theologians would have us believe that Luke is here defective, and that the words in Matthew 'Until all be fulfilled' mean 'Until my death shall fulfil all the types'; but this would make Jesus purposely to deceive his disciples by a riddle; . . . he must have known how he was understood; they supposed him to mean that Levitism was eternal, and he did not correct their impression." Comp. also Maximi Homiliae hyemales et aestivales, quoted by Friedreich, Zur Bibel, I. 232.

6 Acts X. 14; XI. 8; comp. infra. 7 In Gal. IV. 4, Christ is in fact called γενόμενος ὑπὸ νόμον (comp.

It is true, he appears occasionally to have opposed himself to ritual observances. When the scribes and Pharisees complained, that his disciples were transgressing the tradition of their forefathers 8 by not washing their hands before meals, and by plucking ears of corn and rubbing out the grains with their hands on the Sabbath-day10, he palliated this conduct by reproaching the Pharisees, in his turn, with a corruption of the Law, and he quoted what appeared to him apposite parallels taken from Hebrew history and the ordinary Temple practice, though the analogies are doubtful or imperfect 11; and later, he himself openly neglected the same ceremonies 12. He spoke lightly of the dietary rules, which in his time had grown so luxuriantly in Judaism. "Not that", he urged, "which goes into the mouth defiles a man, but that which comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man" 13. This sentiment was incomprehensible to his disciples 14; they considered it “a parable", which they desired to have explained; so far from their minds, nay so incredible appeared to them the idea of a total abolition of the levitical laws of food: but Christ reproached them with obtuseness 15, and furnished explicit illustrations to prove that evil thoughts and other moral offences "are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands defiles not a man"16. And when he had acted on this view, and was censured by a Pharisee, he pointed out, how little it availed "to make clean the outside of the cup and platter", while "the inward part was full of ravening and wickedness"; and he gave expression to this fine maxim: "But rather give alms of such things as you have, and behold, all things are clean unto you"17. He predicted to his followers that they were sure to suffer hatred and perse

1 Cor. IX. 20). De Wette (on Matth. V. 17) remarks, "The question whether Christ intended to repeal the ritual law, disappears under our hands if, as is necessary, we understand both zataksat and hypoca in reference to the spirit and not merely to the letter: according to the spirit, that is, for the ends of devotion, Christianity has in reality not abolished the ritual law of Mosaism, but has rendered it more perfect"; and again (on Acts X. 13-16), "Christ did not repeal the ceremonial law rashly and arbitrarily, but left it to the progress of time to effect its removal." But these remarks beg the question, and are wanting in decision. Even orthodox Christians admit that "the disciples originally expected from the Messiah the observance of the Mosaic Law according to its letter", E. J. Meyer, 1. c. p. 17.

4 Τῶν πρεσβυτέρων; comp. Hebr.

14 Comp. John XVI. 12 sqq. 15 Matth. XV. 16, ̓Ακμὴν καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀσύνετοί ἐστε.

16 See Matth. XV. 11-20. A similar want of võis on the part of the disciples appears with respect to the very nature and mission of Christ; see Comm. on Lev. I. p. 306 note 8; comp. also Luke XXIV. 25, 45; John II. 18-22; Acts I. 6, 7.

17 Luke XI. 37, 41; see p. 105; comp.